Disposed

Surendra Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC13 Feb 2018CWJC/18522/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding alleged land encroachment and utilization for road construction, the Patna High Court held that disputed factual questions cannot be decided in inter partes proceedings. The petitioner was directed to apply to the Circle Officer for a spot inspection to determine if compensation payment or vacating of land was required.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of; Petitioner directed to apply to Circle Officer for spot inspection to determine liability for compensation or vacating of land based on inquiry report.

Surendra Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18522 of 2014

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Surendra Prasad Singh S/O Late (Dr.)Chandrika Prasad Yadav Resident of Village-Dumariya,P.S-Bihta,Distt.-Patna

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

The District Magistrate,Patna

¶8

The Sub Division Magistrate,Danapur,Distt.-Patna

¶9

The Circle Officer,Maner Block,Maner,Distt.-Patna

¶10

The Executive Officer,Danapur Nagar Parisad,Danapur,Distt.-Patna

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madan Jeet Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. SC4- MD. RAISUL HAQUE ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

Date : 13-02-2018

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as also counsel for the Danapur Nagar Parishad.

¶15

The Danapur Nagar Parishad in paragraph no.2 of its counter affidavit has stated that as per report dated 9.11.2017, the brick soiling from the part of the petitioner’s land has been removed by the Nagar Parishad Danapur Nizamat, Danapur and there is no brick soiling on the portion/part of the petitioner's land.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the letter dated 9.11.2017 showing the report of the Circle Officer from which it appears that the land of the petitioner measuring 663 Sq.ft. i.e. 1.52 Decimal of land having been utilized for the road.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that though there was a direction to remove the brick soiling but, still

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.18522 of 2014 dt.13-02-2018 2/2

¶19

they have not removed the same from the land of the petitioner whereas learned counsel for the Nagar Parishad, Danapur has taken a stand that brick soiling has been removed from the land of the petitioner and there is no encroachment or there is no utilization of the land of the petitioner for the road.

¶20

There are disputed question of fact, cannot be looked into in the present petition. If the petitioner files a proper application before the Circle Officer, he will make inspection of the spot and if it is found that the land of the petitioner has been utilized for the purpose of construction of road, in such circumstances, the Nagar Parishad, Danapur Nizamat either will pay the compensation or will vacate the same but, in contra, if the inquiry report goes otherwise, in such circumstances, there will not be any question of making further payment to the petitioner.

¶21

With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of.

¶22

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

¶23

rishi/-

¶24

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	21.02.2018
Transmission Date	NA

Surendra Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Azad Sah @ Azad Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Mohan Sahni Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Rabindra Mohan Prasad Vs the Central Bank of India and or

Ajit Kumar Saha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Raghuvender Kumar @ Raghuvender Mahto Vs The State Of Bihar

Ravindra Prasad @ Ravindra Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.